Democrats keep lying about global warming

The University of Montana continues to lie about Global Warming and Steve Running.

Today, the University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station announced it will host a presentation on July 5 titled, “What’s New in the Global Warming World?” Their announcements reads:

Join the Bio Station and the Flathead Lakers to hear Dr. Steve Running, University of Montana Regents Professor of Global Ecology speak about the current state of climate change science. He is an internationally renowned climate scientist, participating in the US National Climate Assessment, the NASA Science Advisory Council, and the 4th Assessment of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, sharing the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize.

Their announcement is fraudulent.

Running is not a climate scientist. He was a “Professor of Forest Ecology.” Now he is a “Professor of GlobalEcology.” Note the new reference to globalism. Steve Running is a globalist who promotes the globalist myth of global warming. He does a disservice to all Montanans.

Dr. Steve Running masquerades as something he is not. Climate is a subject of physics, not ecology. Physics and ecology are entirely different disciplines. The Democrats support his fraud. They might as well claim a law degree makes one a brain surgeon and a medical degree makes one a trial lawyer.

The University of Montana Flathead Lake Biological Station announcement claims Running shares the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. Facts show Running’s claim to a Nobel Peace Prize is a baldfaced lie. Given he lies about who he is, how can you believe his claims about climate?

In addition, a Nobel Peace Prize has nothing to do with science. The Flathead Biological Station commits fraud when it suggests a Nobel Peace Prize relates to accuracy in science.

The Democrats’ worst failure is their lie about global warming. They do not understand the scientific method. Democrats are mentally incapable of scientific debate. They just assume they are correct and denigrate anyone who disagrees with them.

They think science is about cherry-picking data that seems to support their preconceived hypothesis. Steve Running and the Democrats do not understand that science is just the opposite. Science is about rejecting hypotheses that make wrong predictions.

The Key to Science

The Key to Science is if any prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong. Their global warming hypothesis makes many wrong predictions. Therefore, their hypothesis is wrong. Human CO2 does not cause climate change. Something else does.

The Democrats and Steve Running and the University of Montana claim our CO2 emissions cause dangerous global warming when CO2 data do not even correlate with global temperature. How dumb can you get?

Post Views: 446

Post navigation

26 thoughts on “Democrats keep lying about global warming”

Thank you for keeping after those who are part of the Global Warming scam. It is a pity that Democrats, as a political party, have become heavily involved in harming climate science by their attempts to enforce a politically-correct version that meshes all their favorite causes into one comprehensive package.

Science never works that way. Each separate scientific issue has to survive on its own merits. We don't care if it supports or opposes political considerations. We are only interested in the truth. And that truth is derived from logic and evidence, not from President Obama's opinion.

If the University of Montana and Steve Running are deliberately promoting falsehoods, they do not deserve their elevated status. Claims of a Nobel Prize that they do not have and claims of a strong connection between man-made CO2 and Global Warming that they cannot justify are very much the same thing: dishonesty.

I see that you continue to focus on the incidentals (Rasmussen’s resume in this case) while still not understanding the very basics of global warming yourself -while you claim to be the bonafide physicist. Even the lay person understands the following:

The heat content of the crust of the Earth is determined by just three things: the solar flux at our position in the Sun’s solar system, the degree of reflection (albedo) of that incoming solar radiation and the magnitude of heat insulation (the greenhouse effect) provided by the contents of our atmosphere . That’s it. And one of these has been changing relatively rapidly since the beginning of the Industrial Age – that is the latter variable, the greenhouse (or insulation) effect. So just as you get warmer if you put on a heavier coat, the Earth gets warmer as the concentrations of its long-lived greenhouse gases increases. Therefore, anyone who knows a bit of physics knows that the heat content of the Earth has to be increasing –just as measurements and observations show that it is.

Now exactly how that increased heat content affects all corners of the Earth is indeed very complex and provides the basis of another field called Meteorology – a field that is not nearly as well understood. So while the physics of total heating is clear – global warming has to be occurring – exactly how and how fast it affects conditions all around the entire globe (the associated meteorology, that is) is not as clear and is not as well understood. Thus, to say that the total heat content of the world is not increasing is dead wrong and silly if being said by someone claiming to be a physicist. So, as I have thought for several years now, “Dr. Ed”, you still seem to be a very poor judge of who is a bona fide “physicist” and who it not.

To answer your question, My life-long professional experience (see full resume at ericgrimsrud.org) have involved college and graduate school courses in chemistry, physics, biology, math and geology: years of research leading to some 120 peer-reviewed papers in chemistry, physics, and atmospheric science, as well as the teaching of many courses from the undergrad through the graduate school levels, I have learned a lot of chemistry, physics, math, biology and geology. All of this has been helpful in my work and teaching of climate issues which are distinctly inter disciplinary. Equally importantly, in retirement I continue to try to learn more in all of these areas. So yes, I have the best I can in order to prepare me for my life in science.

In the late Ordovician Period, the planet plunged into and warmed up from the Andean/Saharan ice age, all at about 10 times the current CO2 level. This and the observation that CO2 change occurs after temperature change rule out atmospheric CO2 as a significant factor in climate change.

Emergent structures analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com demonstrates that significant influence from CO2 is not needed to explain Average Global Temperature (AGT) change (97% match with measurements since before 1900).

AGT change can be explained by an approximation of ocean cycles combined with the influence quantified by a proxy which is the time-integral of sunspot number anomalies.

At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all land plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide. The fixation on CO2 level needs to be put in context. Bar chart displays graphic emphasis in Figure 5 at http://globalclimatedrivers.blogspot.com

You have parroted the overly simplified version of global heating while embellishing with presumption much more than is truly known.

You stated,

"and the magnitude of heat insulation (the greenhouse effect) provided by the contents of our atmosphere . That’s it. And one of these has been changing relatively rapidly since the beginning of the Industrial Age – that is the latter variable, the greenhouse (or insulation) effect. So just as you get warmer if you put on a heavier coat, the Earth gets warmer as the concentrations of its long-lived greenhouse gases increases."

The relatively paltry increase of 100 PPM in atmospheric CO2 does not equal the known warming as you suggest. The increase in CO2 itself is in fact known to be incapable of the warming. The AGW theory relies upon a small (unconfirmed) warming from CO2 that triggers an increase in water vapor to produce the increased greenhouse effect you are talking about. There is debate on whether or not the needed water vapor increase has occurred as well as much acknowledgment that there are many unknown influences and forcings involved.

We don't know what you say we know about global heating.

We don't even have a high reliability on what "measurements and observations" show us.

There is just as much remaining climate complexity in what may or may not be increasing the heat content as there is in how it may affect all corners of the Earth with Meteorology.

Mary, Water vapor is indeed a very important GHG. Its concentration in the atm, however, is primarily caused by temperature. Thus water was a feedback or amplifier of any other factor that causes increased T – including the effect if increased CO2.

I stand by my statement concerning the 3 factors that control T and the fact that one of these, the greenhouse effect, is out of control. If there is another factor in addition to those 3, please either you or Ed tell us what that is.

How that extra heat plays out across the planet is much more complex, of course. That subject is called meteorology. The basic physics behind the total heat content of the Earth is, indeed, as simply as I said. If there is a 4th factor, I would like to have you or Ed tell us what that might be. Eric

You need to try harder, catch up and keep up if you are truly interested in having productive conversations.

Simply repeating your fog is not progress.

I was quite clear in my rebuttal to your assertions.

Again, you have greatly embellished what is known about the role of atmopheric CO2 and what the relatively paltry increase of 100 PPM is capable of doing.

You've fallen into the trap of a deductive fallacy based upon an absence of science. Your demand for more as the only way to refute your fallacy is ridiculous.

How is it that you cannot see this?

I'll repeat, the increase in CO2 itself is widely accepted as being incapable of the warming you're attributing to it without an increase in water vapor to produce the increased greenhouse effect and the bulk of warming.

You need to move forward from that point and avoid slipping back to your tired chant.

The fact is climate scientists do not know if the water vapor feedback loop has occurred as theorized. It gets worse from there as so much more is unknown and more science is needed before making your conclusions.

Stop pretending more is known and understood than current science can explain.

Demanding more from what is not available does not validate your assumptions.

If you are an AGW theorist, then you should read, if you haven't already, the 100+ page thesis by two physicists from the German Institute of Mathematical Physics, Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner, titled "Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics". Here are some comments by the authors:

*********************************************************

Section 4 discusses the foundations of climate science, whilst the limits of computer models are also pointed out, with this pertinent quote by eminent theoretical physicist Freeman J Dyson:

“The real world is muddy and messy and full of things that we do not yet understand. It is much easier for a scientist to sit in an air-conditioned building and run computer models, than to put on winter clothes and measure what is really happening outside in the swamps and the clouds. That is why the climate model experts end up believing in their own models.”

It cannot be overemphasized that even if the equations are simplified considerably, one cannot determine numerical solutions, even for small space regions and even for small time intervals. This situation will not change in the next 1000 years regardless of progress made in computer hardware. Therefore, global climatologists may continue to write updated research grant proposals demanding next-generation supercomputers ad infinitum. As the extremely simplified one-fluid equations are unsolvable, the many-fluid equations would be more unsolvable, the equations that include the averaged equations describing the turbulence would be yet more unsolvable, if “unsolvable" had a comparative. Regardless of the chosen level of complexity, these equations are supposed to be the backbone of climate simulations, or, in other words, the foundation of models of nature. But even this is not true: In computer simulations heat conduction and friction are completely neglected, since they are mathematically described by second order partial derivatives that cannot be represented on grids with wide meshes.”

Of course, I agree with their comments. They are German physicists and my physics mentor was a German physicist. I was surprised they referenced my now irrelevant 1974 publication on the greenhouse effect.

What are you talking about? I'm asking him to prove his claim that "At the end of the last glaciation the planet came perilously close to extinction of all land plants and animals because of lack of atmospheric carbon dioxide."

Berry writes: "The Key to Science is if any prediction is wrong then your hypothesis is wrong."

Here is an effort to reformulate this sentence to make it closer to a correct one:

One of several approaches for evaluating the accuracy of a scientific model that uses data and assumptions of relationships between measurable quantities to make predictions is that, if any prediction of the model is incorrect, there are several possibilities: At least one of the relationships is incorrect, or at least one such relationship is missing from the model, or at least one of the numbers in the data input set is associated with a significant numerical error.

(The meaning of "incorrect" must, of course, be clearly specified for any particular situation).

He doesn't specify what is meant by "wrong". He doesn't acknowledge the multitude of possible reasons for such errors and he doesn't mention that the use of such disagreement are routinely used in (climate) science to improve models and to modify hypothesis if required.

Only garbage remains of his argument, I am afraid.

The facts are: the science on global warming is settled; that game is over; the "doubters" are heading for the history books, and from now on the fight is purely political.

The AGW hypotheses, which are incorporated into the government climate models makes wrong predictions. You admit they make wrong predictions. Obviously, you are correct that there are many possible reasons the AGW models are wrong.

Here is where you are wrong.

Those who point out the obvious, that the AGW models are wrong, do not have the burden of proof to show WHY they are wrong. Those who are paid to develop the AGW hypotheses and the AGW models must determine why their AGW models are wrong, fix them, and then show they can make accurate predictions. They have not done this.

Therefore, no one – not you, not your professor, not the president – can rightfully claim the AGW hypothesis is true. The required scientific Null Hypothesis says all climate changes are natural until someone proves we humans caused the change.

An analogy is, a company releases a new medicine that they claim will cure an illness. The data show the new medicine kills people. Therefore, the company’s prediction is wrong and its hypothesis is wrong. It is up to the company, not the public, to find out why their medicine kills people. But AGW believers, like you, keep telling the public the medicine is OK, the science is settled, so keep taking the medicine … and die.

The garbage is not in what I wrote. The garbage is in your unfounded, emotional claim in your last sentence. You sound like you learned about climate in an environmental class that taught you what to think instead of how to think. You certainly did not learn your climate science in a good science class.

Here is an example where a scientist, not part of the paid climate establishment, found an error in the climate models, fixed it, and improved the model predictions by 80 to 90 percent.

Dr. David Evans, an expert mathematician, found climate models contain a serious error. Climate models use the old Arrhenius assumption that Earth responds to CO2 change like it responds to change in solar radiation. The Arrhenius assumption is incorrect. Climate responds much differently to changes in CO2 than it does to changes in solar radiation. When Evans corrects for this model error alone, climate model temperature predictions decrease by 80 to 90 percent.

The point is, Evans fixed an error in the hypothesis. His fix dramatically improved the model predictions. The problem for AGW believers, like you, is the fix that improved the climate models also proves the AGW hypothesis you promote, is wrong. It proves we humans do not cause climate change according to the models.

Thank you for your blog. It is very enlightening to read the scientific discussions here. I like Dr. Salby's work and your simplification of it. My degree is in health sciences so I can't keep up with the complex formulas but I find your position and arguments on AGW far superior to the alarmists.

I have spent the last 5 years doing research and clinical work that delves deep into the human psyche and explores the source of many core beliefs and thus perceptions of the world. Beliefs can be held in 3 different levels of consciousness. The rational conscious mind that we use for thinking and are fully aware of, the sub-conscious mind where we hold learned beliefs that we are not consciously aware of but heavily influences our actions and reactions, and the unconscious mind which holds the beliefs that humanity as a whole shares, or in other words a type of group consciousness that we tend to have no awareness of. I can't add anything of value to the scientific discussion here but I would like to share some insight into why some people are more likely to be attracted to the alarmist point of view and continue to cling to it even after they are proven wrong and lack proof of their own.

There are 2 issues that exist in some peoples minds that are relevant to AGW alarmism. First, some people are, to varying degrees, addicted to Drama. It is learned during childhood and is often perpetuated from generation to generation. People who are addicted to drama, and there are many who are, will be attracted to the drama that surrounds AGW alarmism and all the terrible outcomes it predicts. The source of the addiction resides in the sub-conscious mind as a learned pattern that does not require conscious or rational thought. In practical terms, the attraction to drama becomes the comfortable "go to" position. To consider and move toward a less or non-dramatic position is to move into a less comfortable place in that persons psyche. And, in many cases, rational, logical scientific proof is not enough to move a person's beliefs away from the comfort of the more dramatic position. The thought process boils down to: AGW predicts many dire dramatic outcomes and I, as a human, am playing a role in it —-> I subconsciously like/prefer drama and feel comfortable with it —-> AGW is true and I feel better believing it than denying it. So I continue to believe and defend it even though it is irrational.

The second issue that applies to AGW and resides at an even deeper level of almost everyone's psyche, but to varying degrees, is the "unconscious guilt" that we carry from the belief that humans have done harm and continue to do harm to our environment. It is true that humans have done many things and continue to do many things that harm our environment. There is no denying that. However, it is this non-personal guilt (humanities guilt) that we carry in our unconscious minds that leads many people to "find a cause" in order to gain a sense of relief or redemption from the guilt.

It then plays out like this in some peoples minds: Humanity is guilty of harming the environment (this is true) —-> I am part of humanity and carry some of this guilt in my unconscious mind (also true) —-> creates the belief in the sub-conscious mind that "if I support a cause that is good for the environment, I can gain relief from this guilt I carry" (a belief not a truth) —-> the desire to gain relief from the guilt that is now at the sub-conscious level is stronger, for some people, than reason or logic or proof to the contrary —-> I choose to defend an irrational hypothesis based in fear rather than accept or feel the guilt. All of this goes on without conscious awareness.

If you then add external pressure on the conscious level ie: peer pressure, money, prestige, career security, particularly in the scientific community you have a mind that is heavily weighted toward AGW alarmism. A mind that may cling to half truths, trade integrity for security and ignore reason. Those of us who don't buy in to AGW after hearing both sides of the argument want to shake our heads in disbelief at the ones that do.

My aim in writing this is firstly to offer insight into why a hypothesis like AGW can be perpetuated in society and the scientific community as opposed to being out right rejected. And secondly in hopes that those of us who reject AGW alarmism can have some compassion for those that defend it, knowing that they are predisposed to it.

Dear Don, Thank you for your information. Your explanation may relate to my explanation of the behavior of the far-right tea party face of the Republican Party that I describe in Chapters 9 to 12 of my recent book now advertised in the side panel.